But let’s look at the full picture here – both estimates are laughably bad. The stadium land is valued way too high, and the Terminal Market land is valued way too low. About $50 per square foot is a reasonable ballpark number for the land valuations, which puts one property valuation at less than 1/5th the proper value, and the other at around 5.5x the proper value.

All of you raise several valid reasons why plots of land can be valued differently. But not enough to justify a difference between $9 and $275.

As somebody who lived in the neighborhood and works in the neighborhood and knows these areas intimately, if the Bronx Terminal Market land was valued at $9 a square foot and the Yankee Stadium land was valued at, say, $15 a square foot, it would be intriguing but possible.

It’s simply impossible for there to be any sum of any valid reasons that would cause the parcel of land between 161st Street and 164th Street, Jerome Ave and River Ave to be worth $266 dollars per square foot more than the parcel of land in the Bronx Terminal Market project less than a handful of blocks away. Impossible.

Tony

For reference, if you buy a house on a 50×100 lot in North Jersey, the land will typically be appraised at around $200,000, give or take depending on the town. That’s $40 per square foot. Commercially zoned lots free of environmental issues tend to be more expensive than similar lots with residential zoning. I don’t know land values in NY, but I would think land prices would be higher in NYC than in NJ.

For $9 per square foot, that property has to either be horrendously contaminated, or they’re getting a pretty sweet deal on property taxes. I’m voting on the latter.

Residential vs Commercial zoning laws will change the value.

A large, flat area such as what you’d build a stadium on would have higher value than land on an incline.

Groundwater and/or soil contamination would greatly devalue land. Land down gradient from a contaminated site would be substantially less valuable than land up gradient.

Environmental regulations can drastically alter land values. The closer you are to a body of water, the more limited you are in what you can build on a property, which lowers property value.

The previous uses of land would drastically alter the valuation of it. Previously undeveloped land is highly valuable. Prior industrial use greatly devalues land.

While a 3,000x difference in value certainly sounds way out of line, I would expect land within a major city that’s suitable for building a stadium to be scare and worth a lot more money than the land around it. Short story is you can’t take two valuations and reasonably compare them without knowing a LOT about the property.

Sports franchises should have the same access to incentives that other business do. They keep jobs at home, create short term increase in local employment, add certainly add to the local economy. IN NO WAY do I condone inappropriate and potentially illegal activities as a means to achieve some sort of corporate parity but I understand what Tony was trying to say.